Appeal 2006-1306
Application 10/218,991
polyols (i.e., polyol syrups). This interpretation is reasonable and consistent
with Appellants’ specification.
As aforenoted, Reed teaches heating a syrup containing xylitol,
hydrogenated isomaltulose and water to a temperature range of 100°F to
200°F (Reed, col. 7, ll. 61-68, col. 8, ll. 1-20). Interpreting the claim phrase,
“liquefying at least one polyol and at least one non-polyol by heating” to
encompass Reed’s liquefied and heated polyol-containing (i.e., xylitol) and
non-polyol-containing (i.e., hydrogenated isomaltulose) syrup is reasonable
and consistent with Appellants’ Specification.
In view of our claim interpretation of “liquefying” we sustain the
Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 32-33 over Reed.
REMAND
We remand this application for the Examiner to consider the
patentability of claims 1 and 4, especially under § 103(a), over Mentink.
The portion of the Mentink disclosure cited by the Examiner (i.e., col. 7, ll.
41) as teaching a “molten polyol” refers to the step of preparing the various
materials that make up the various layers in the multi-layer candy (Answer
4-5). The portion of Mentink cited by the Examiner does not indicate that
the coating material (i.e., “Component A” or “Component B”) is applied to a
confectionary core as a coating at a molten temperature. Rather, Mentink
discloses three “techniques” for forming the multilayer confection where the
coating material is applied to the core.
One of the “techniques” of forming the candy includes “casting”
(Mentink, col. 8, ll. 24-26). In the casting technique, “several runs of
cooked masses” (i.e., “Component A”, “Component B” and ingredients
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007